Functional
sustainability in
community water
and sanitation
A case study from South-West Uganda
DIOCESE OF KIGEZI
CHURCH OF UGANDA
Functional sustainability
in community water
and sanitation
A case study from South-West Uganda
Richard C Carter and Ronnie Rwamwanja, August 2006
Glossary
3
Selected technical terms
3
Financial indicators
4
Acknowledgments
4
Abstract
5
1
Introduction
6
2
Starting Points
7
2.1 Defining sustainability
7
2.2 The importance of functional sustainability
8
2.3 The background to this research
9
3
Methodology
10
3.1 Overall approach
10
3.2 Development of working hypotheses
10
3.3 Key informant interviews and focus group discussions
12
3.4 Fieldwork
12
©
TEARFUND
2006
1
FUNCTIONAL
4
2
S U S TA I N A B I L I T Y
IN
COMMUNITY
WAT E R
AND
S A N I TAT I O N
Results
14
4.1 Fieldwork results – gravity flow schemes
14
4.2 Fieldwork results – protected springs
17
4.3 Fieldwork results – rainwater harvesting
19
4.4 Key informant interview findings
19
5
Synthesis
25
6
Implications
29
6.1 For faith-based organisations
29
6.2 For NGOs
29
6.3 For government
30
6.4 For international donors
30
References
32
©
TEARFUND
2006
A
CASE
STUDY
FROM
SOUTH-WEST
UGANDA
Glossary
CBO
DWD
IA
KDWSP
LC 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
LWF
MDGs
O&M
SWTWSP
community-based organisation (eg burial group, women’s group)
Directorate of Water Development (of the Ministry of Water, Lands and Environment)
implementing agency (government or NGO, undertaking a project or programme)
Kigezi Diocese Water and Sanitation Programme
local councils: 1 – village, 2 – parish, 3 – subcounty, 4 – county, 5 – district
Lutheran World Federation
Millennium Development Goals
operation and maintenance
South-West Towns Water and Sanitation Programme
TSU
Technical Support Unit (central government support to district water offices)
USh
Uganda Shilling
Selected technical terms
GFS
protected spring
jar
tank
gravity flow scheme: a water supply fed by gravity pipeline from a spring to public
standposts (public taps) and individual household connections
a natural spring enclosed by a small concrete structure and surrounded by a storm drain and
fence to protect the quality of water issuing freely from it
an unreinforced cement mortar rainwater storage container (in KDWSP, 420 litres)
a lightly reinforced ferrocement water storage structure (in KDWSP, 4,000 litres and
upwards)
©
TEARFUND
2006
3
FUNCTIONAL
S U S TA I N A B I L I T Y
IN
COMMUNITY
WAT E R
AND
S A N I TAT I O N
Financial indicators
Bottle of Coca Cola (300ml)
USh500
Bag of cement (50kg)
USh19,000 – 20,000
20 litre jerry can
USh3,000
Sheet of roofing tin (mbati), 10ft x 3ft
USh19,000 (30 gauge)
Poorer use 32 gauge at USh12,000
KDWSP 420 litre rainwater jar
USh130,000 (full cost)
USh18,000 (subsidised price)
KDWSP 4,000 litre rainwater tank
USh400,000 (full cost)
USh140,000 (subsidised price)
Crestank plastic water tank (500 litre)
USh173,000
Crestank plastic water tank (4,000 litre)
USh1,045,000
Petrol (litre)
USh2,300
Diesel (litre)
USh1,800
Bottled drinking water (300ml)
USh500
Labour rate
USh1,000 – 2,000 per day, depending on location
Approximate exchange rates: USh3,100 = £1; USh1,780 = US $1)
Acknowledgments
Thanks are due to all those who participated in this work, whether as key informants or
interested stakeholders, including those who enjoy the benefits of improved water supply,
sanitation and hygiene practices. Particular thanks are due to the leadership and staff of
KDWSP. This work was financially supported by Tearfund UK.
4
©
TEARFUND
2006
A
CASE
STUDY
FROM
SOUTH-WEST
UGANDA
Functional sustainability
in community water
and sanitation
A case study from South-West Uganda
Richard Carter1 and Ronnie Rwamwanja2
Abstract
Currently 56% of the Ugandan population have access to safe water, and 41% to improved
sanitation, according to the UN (Human Development Report 2005). Kigezi Diocese Water
and Sanitation Programme (KDWSP) has been working with communities and households
in Kigezi Diocese/Kabale District of South-West Uganda since 1986. Three external
evaluations carried out between 1997 and 2004 indicated that KDWSP has consistently
performed well in terms of relevance, cost-effectiveness, wider impact, and sustainability
of services developed. The achievement of sustainability is recognised to be extremely
challenging, and therefore this short research study has focused on (i) whether, and
(ii) how KDWSP achieves this elusive goal. The research confirmed through field studies,
key-informant interviews and focus group discussions that the services provided through
KDWSP do indeed ‘continue to work over time’ – at least as long as sixteen years according
to this study. Three sets of factors have been identified as accounting for the programme’s
sustainable services. These are:
●
taking seriously the principles of community-based development learned over several
decades, and to which many other programmes pay lip-service
●
processes, both internal to the programme and outward facing – ie how the programme
operates
●
the underlying values and ethos of the programme, which provide the foundation for the
entire edifice.
This study also begins to consider the relevance of these findings to other faith-based
organisations, secular NGOs, government and donors.
1
Cranfield University, UK r.c.carter@cranfield.ac.uk
2
Independent consultant rwamwanja@yahoo.com
©
TEARFUND
2006
5
FUNCTIONAL
S U S TA I N A B I L I T Y
IN
COMMUNITY
WAT E R
AND
S A N I TAT I O N
1 Introduction
The achievement of a lasting impact in rural development is a major challenge for donors
and the agencies implementing poverty-focused community projects and programmes in
low-income countries. Too few good examples of sustainability exist, from which to develop
an understanding of sustainability in practice. The Kigezi Diocese (Church of Uganda)
Water and Sanitation Programme (KDWSP) in Uganda, however, is one such model, and
its success in delivering sustainable rural water services has been extensively documented
through evaluations undertaken between 1997 and 2004 (Carter et al 1997; Morgan et
al 2001; Danert et al 2004). KDWSP has now been working with rural communities in
Kabale District/Kigezi Diocese (the district and diocese share common boundaries), SouthWest Uganda, for nearly 20 years. It has so far served around 200,000 people with basic
water supply, sanitation and hygiene education, and it adds 20,000–25,000 to that number
annually.
During 2005 the authors undertook a small piece of theoretical and empirical research
to investigate what accounts for this programme’s success in delivering sustainable water
services in rural communities, and how the case-specific findings could be applied to other
players in the water and sanitation sector in Uganda and beyond.
6
©
TEARFUND
2006
A
CASE
STUDY
FROM
SOUTH-WEST
UGANDA
2 Starting points
2.1
Defining sustainability
Much has been written on the subject of sustainable development and sustainability in
many different contexts. The concept is elusive, and interpreted in many different ways.
It is important to be clear at the outset what is and is not meant by sustainability in the
water and sanitation sector.
In some ways it is easier to understand what kinds of development intervention are not
sustainable, or in which sustainability is fragile. The promotion of:
●
income-generating activities where there is no market for the goods or services produced
(eg capital-intensive irrigation schemes in remote locations)
●
technologies which require maintenance, periodic repair and eventual replacement, but
for which institutional or financial mechanisms for such activities are weak or nonexistent (eg water treatment plants in places where the organisational competence and
access to recurrent finance, chemicals, fuel and parts are weak)
●
technologies or changes to behavioural practice which offend or fail to fit the culture and
social structures of users (eg human excreta re-use in cultures which are offended by such
a notion)
●
activities which fail to fit the aspirations and risk-aversion strategies of target users
(eg mono-cropping of cash crops, where farmers prefer to spread risks across many
activities within their farming system)
●
interventions which offend or fail to fit local or national political structures and power
relations, or public policies (eg the refusal to bow to pressures involving corrupt
practices)
●
activities which create or exacerbate negative environmental impacts such as water
pollution, soil erosion or ecological imbalances (eg introduction of exotic flora or fauna)
●
interventions which are not robust enough to withstand external shocks such as
increased climate instability, or disease epidemics
…all represent examples of interventions which may fail, sooner or later.
It is clear that the notion of sustainable development interventions has human, psychological, social, cultural, financial, institutional, environmental and technical dimensions,
some of which are internal (eg cultural and local political issues) and some of which are
external (eg natural climate, markets) to those households and communities which are
meant to benefit from externally-supported interventions. In some sense, sustainable
interventions have to ‘work’ in all these areas.
It is easy to confuse notions of sustainability with those of success. Clearly the two
are closely related, but the distinguishing feature is the time dimension. An apparently
successful intervention, ie one which is relevant to people’s needs and which is effective in
addressing those needs, may fail after a period of time because of unforseen factors internal
or external to the community involved. For example, an intervention relying on availability
of some specific type of spare part or consumable such as fuel or chemicals may work for a
©
TEARFUND
2006
7
FUNCTIONAL
S U S TA I N A B I L I T Y
IN
COMMUNITY
WAT E R
AND
S A N I TAT I O N
time, but when external conditions change – for instance a fuel shortage or price rise – the
intervention fails. A sustainable intervention on the other hand is not only successful in the
sense just outlined, but successful over a significant period of time.
In defining the concept of sustainability of water and sanitation services, Abrams (1998)
uses a beguilingly simple set of words, which encompass most of what has just been
discussed. Abrams refers to a sustainable intervention as ‘one which continues to work
over time’. This simple phrase needs unpacking. It includes or implies at least the
following ideas:
●
the fact that the service continues to work implies that it is being used
●
its continued functionality implies that it is being maintained
●
furthermore, its maintenance is being paid for, or it would deteriorate
●
the phrase ‘over time’ has no limit – ie the service, or some development of it, is
permanent.
In this work therefore, we adopt Abrams’ pragmatic definition, with the emphasis on the
permanence of the beneficial change brought about by development intervention. Even
though physical hardware (water pipes, storage reservoirs and the like) has a notional design
life, mechanisms need to be built in to rehabilitate or replace such technology, perhaps
upgrading to a higher level of service in the process. We refer to this concept as functional
sustainability.
2.2
The importance of functional sustainability
The importance of sustainability may appear obvious, but four aspects are worth
highlighting:
8
●
First, however successful an intervention may be in the short-term, if its beneficial
impact is not sustained over a long period of time, it cannot be deemed cost-effective.
Funds have been invested by users and by donors, and a few years later there is nothing
to show for the investment.
●
Second, progress toward the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) or any other
service coverage targets is undermined by non-sustainable interventions. If services are
falling into disrepair as others are being newly constructed, the net progress toward full
coverage decelerates – the antithesis of the drive toward scaling-up of service delivery.
●
Third, non-sustainable interventions serve to discourage the households, communities
and local government/NGO institutions which have seen some short-term benefit, only
to be disappointed as hard-won gains are snatched away. On the other hand, sustainable
outcomes build confidence, self-reliance and self-esteem.
●
Fourth, as confidence and self-esteem grow among communities and supporting
institutions, possibilities for further self-help or locally initiated undertakings can
emerge, creating a multiplicative effect.
©
TEARFUND
2006
A
2.3
CASE
STUDY
FROM
SOUTH-WEST
UGANDA
The background to this research
There were two main drivers for the research described in this paper. The first was a desire
to understand what accounts for KDWSP’s apparent success in achieving functional
sustainability. External evaluations carried out in 1997 (Carter et al 1997), 2001 (Morgan
et al 2001) and 2004 (Danert et al 2004) concur in their positive assessments of the
effectiveness, impact and sustainability of the programme. There seemed to be little doubt
that the services provided by the programme were sustainable in Abrams’ sense. They
demonstrably continue to work over time, with many schemes and systems now having
delivered water supply and sanitation services to rural households and communities
for up to 20 years. The questions focused on how this is so, especially when so many
similar programmes fail to achieve this goal. In his highly relevant article on the topic
of sustainability, which we come back to later in this paper, Justin Mog (2004) refers to
‘struggling with sustainability’. Reaching this elusive goal is a major challenge which few
programmes achieve.
The second reason for carrying out the research was to explain, interpret and promote to a
wider audience, the good practice developed over 20 years of trial and error, learning and
success, community and institutional growth. Specifically, can the practices developed in
one district of Uganda, by one faith-based organisation, have relevance for other parts of the
country or region, for government, for secular NGOs and CBOs?
©
TEARFUND
2006
9
FUNCTIONAL
S U S TA I N A B I L I T Y
IN
COMMUNITY
WAT E R
AND
S A N I TAT I O N
3 Methodology
3.1
Overall approach
The overall approach of the work was to measure, to understand, and to apply the findings.
It therefore used a mix of quantitative and qualitative data collection methods. Quantitative
methods were used to establish the extent of sustainability achieved, and to exhibit relationships between factors which may account for the achievement of sustainability. Qualitative
approaches were used to generate depth of understanding of issues.
The research consisted of three components:
3.2
●
First, informed by prior knowledge of the programme itself and the relevant literature,
a set of working hypotheses was put down, and a sub-set of these identified for specific
focus.
●
Second, a set of in-depth interviews with key informants, all professionals in rural
development in sub-Saharan Africa was carried out.
●
Third, quantitative and qualitative field studies were conducted to determine the
extent to which the services brought about by the programme really have proved to be
sustainable, and to explore the reasons for long term impact, or its breakdown.
Development of working hypotheses
On 15th February 2005 a one-day opening workshop was held in Kampala, attended by
18 participants from government and NGO sectors, donors and KDWSP staff. Papers
were presented by the KDWSP Coordinator, DWD’s Assistant Commissioner Rural Water,
and by the research team. Discussion focused on government and NGO experiences of
delivering sustainable operation and maintenance, and began the process of focusing the
research. The following day the research team met with KDWSP programme staff to
brainstorm the key issues and to plan the research activities. Table 1 summarises the key
beliefs of this group, prior to the research, as to how the programme achieves sustainability.
Given the limited funding and duration of the field research, it was decided that the
investigation should focus in particular on the topics of ongoing support, and linkages to
local government. These were perceived as of particular importance in KDWSP’s experience
of sustainable interventions.
Although the research project was too limited in duration and resources to enable it to
undertake rigorous testing of formal hypotheses with corresponding statistical analysis,
the working beliefs in Table 1 provided a useful reference background for subsequent
comparison with research findings. This table is therefore revisited in Section 5 of this
paper.
10
©
TEARFUND
2006
A
Table 1
Key factors
accounting for
sustainability
– identified prior to
the field research
©
CASE
STUDY
FROM
SOUTH-WEST
UGANDA
Factor
Comments
Community participation
– more than lip-service
The importance of full community participation from planning through to O&M is well
known. However the difficulties of achieving this, and the commitment required, often
mean that little more than lip-service is paid to the the achievement of real community
management. This is not the case in KDWSP.
Gender meaning gender
– not just women on
committees
KDWSP first started working with women’s rainwater tank construction groups in the
late 1990s. This aspect of the work has prospered, and now KDWSP’s focus is shifting
to a more balanced attention to women’s and men’s groups.
Close working
relationships with local
government
KDWSP has worked extremely hard to forge strong links with local government, from
village and parish level, through sub-county, to district. The programme is now also
very well known to central government. This puts it in a strong position to advocate for
changes to policy and practice nationally and internationally.
Underlying ethos,
including a learning and
reflective attitude
Honesty and transparency characterise the programme’s approach, but perhaps above
all has been its freedom, ability and willingness to experiment, try, fail or succeed,
learn, and move on. KDWSP is a learning and reflective organisation.
Realistic attention to
scaling-up
KDWSP is a small programme, bringing water and sanitation services to 20,000–
25,000 new people per year. Kabale District’s population is about 500,000.
The programme cannot meet the needs of this target population alone, so new
approaches to scaling-up are needed. KDWSP has been innovative in its approaches
to scaling-up, focusing especially on facilitating others, including the private sector.
High quality of
construction, and value
for money
KDWSP’s strong ethos of respect for all, including its own workers, has resulted in
little or no compromise on construction quality. This is unusual in Uganda, especially in
programmes funded by government and implemented through the private sector.
Ongoing support
KDWSP has recognised before most organisations that sustainability will not be
achieved through full community management. Communities require support in
their management and maintenance roles. KDWSP explicitly provides such
ongoing support.
Emphasis on household
water supply as well as
community sources
Community management of water supply services is not easy. Household level
ownership and management can be preferable. KDWSP’s work with household
rainwater harvesting has broadened its scope beyond ‘community’ water supply.
Hygiene promotion
through health workers
living in the community
KDWSP’s health workers live in, and become adopted and trusted by, the communities
where the programme works. In a large gravity flow scheme, health workers may be
resident part-time for up to a year. This approach is extremely effective in bringing
about subsequent community commitment to improved hygiene practices.
Inter-community
competitions
As a means of building on community pride and dignity, the programme has for many
years organised inter-community competitions to encourage good hygiene practices
and effective scheme maintenance. These are very effective.
Commitment to
community capacity
building
A further expression of the programme’s ethos is its belief in communities’ potential
to manage their own services. Capacity building is seen as a means of releasing the
potential of communities, and leaving them better able to initiate and manage their own
development.
Geographic focus
Many programmes spread themselves too thinly, often for good political reasons.
However, this limits their efficiency and effectiveness, and compromises the chances of
sustainability. KDWSP has for many years operated a geographically focused strategy,
which enables it to work effectively in one area before moving on to the next.
TEARFUND
2006
11
FUNCTIONAL
3.3
S U S TA I N A B I L I T Y
IN
COMMUNITY
WAT E R
AND
S A N I TAT I O N
Key informant interviews and focus group discussions
Three groups of key informants were identified. These are set out in Table 2.
Table 2
Key informants
and focus groups
interviewed
3.4
Key informant category
Number interviewed
Description
Water sector and
development professionals
7 individuals
Including senior DWD rural water staff,
consultants, NGO programme staff and
private sector.3
Local government and other
public sector representatives
7 individuals
Including sub-county elected and
administrative staff, district and technical
support unit water sector personnel and
South-West Towns programme staff.4
Gravity flow scheme water
and sanitation committees
4 committees,
32 individuals
A range of schemes varying in date of
construction from 1990 to 1998.5
KDWSP programme staff
4 individuals
Field staff concerned with programme
implementation and hygiene and sanitation.6
Fieldwork
Visits were made to a selection of schemes and communities representing each of the main
water supply technologies promoted by the programme – ie spring protection, gravity flow
schemes (GFS) and rainwater harvesting. The purpose of the field visits was twofold:
●
to conduct a physical audit of the facilities
●
to establish the activities of the management committees.
Selection was part-purposive (eg selecting GFS with reportedly good and poor maintenance
records) and part-random (eg the selection of tapstands within individual GFS). An
attempt was made to sample a sufficient number of schemes, systems or communities to
represent the different technologies (Table 3), but the limited resources available restricted
the extent to which this was possible. The field research findings therefore should be taken
as indicative of the realities, rather than strictly statistically representative. Nevertheless, the
triangulation permitted by reference to previous evaluations, field visits carried out during
12
3
Graham Carr, Managing Director Aclaim; Kerstin Danert, Technical Adviser DWD; Craig Kippels, Country Director
LWF; Annette Nalwoga, Programme Officer LWF; Gilbert Kimanzi, Senior Engineer DWD; Patrick Okuni, Senior
Engineer DWD; Joyce Magala Mpalanyi, Consultant; Ronnie Rwamwanja, Consultant and Field Researcher (twice
– before and after the field research).
4
Bitarabeho James, Kyanamira sub-county Chief; Kyerere B Frank, Rwamucucu sub-county Chairperson; Herbert
Nuwagaba, Programme Coordinator South-West Towns Water and Sanitation Programme; Nzeirwe Frank, Assistant
District Water Officer Sanitation; Abel Turyamureba, Charles Twebaze and Jolly Barigye, TSU.
5
Kabanyonyi/Kanjobe; Katuna Upper; Rwancereere; Nyamabaare.
6
Kenneth Bekunda, Grace Kiconco, Kasigazi Julius, Milton Nkurunungi.
©
TEARFUND
2006
A
CASE
STUDY
FROM
SOUTH-WEST
UGANDA
this research, key informant interviews and focus group discussions, gives considerable
confidence in the reliability of the study findings.
The instrument used for the field survey was a checklist of questions about the management
of the water supply scheme or system (including regularity and interval between committee
meetings, availability of records, financial assets and revenue collection), and about the
physical condition of the facilities (condition of taps, tapstands and protected springs,
rainwater storage tanks and jars, drainage aprons, drainage channels, fences, and the general
environment around waterpoints).
Table 3
Sampling of
technologies for
field observations
Water supply
technology
©
Size of sample
Out of total number
Comments
Gravity flow
schemes
8 GFS,
5 tapstands from
each (total of 40
tapstands)
Approximately 32 GFS,
with average of 10–20
tapstands each
Schemes visited: Kibuga,
Nyaruhanga, Kacereere,
Kaharo, Muyebe, Nyakagyera,
Kamuronko, Kigata
Protected
springs
50
Approximately 1,000
In four sub-counties selected
in part to minimise travel
costs, and to reflect relative
density: Kashambya, Buhara,
Bukinda, Kyanamira
Rainwater
harvesting
12
More than 1,000 jars
and several hundred
institutional and household
tanks in approximately 50
communities.
Six jars (420 litre) and six
tanks (4,000 litre) in Kitumba
and Bubaare sub-counties
TEARFUND
2006
13
FUNCTIONAL
S U S TA I N A B I L I T Y
IN
COMMUNITY
WAT E R
AND
S A N I TAT I O N
4 Results
Since the investigation set out to investigate first whether the services constructed through
the programme are sustainable, and if so, how and why, it is logical to examine the field
results first, followed by the key informant interviews.
4.1
Fieldwork results – gravity flow schemes
(sample size: 8 schemes, 40 GFS tapstands)
All the GFS had two sets of management committees: a central committee responsible for
the management of the whole GFS (source, distribution mains, tapstands) and a tapstand
committee charged with the management of a single tap-stand. All central committees had
scheduled and regular meetings and all had met within the last three months. Records of
meetings were available. For all the GFS, the central committees had instituted bye-laws
that governed the operations of the schemes.
All the eight GFS had well maintained sources. Two of the eight reservoir tanks had minor
leakages. All valves were in good state of maintenance. None of the pipelines were reported
leaking.
Tapstand committee meetings
As an indicator of how active the communities were, the study investigated whether
committees had regular and scheduled meetings or whether meetings were irregular and
ad hoc. Findings are set out in Table 4. The majority (73%) had regular and scheduled
meetings. All tapstand committees in Kaharo and Kigata gravity flow schemes had regular
and planned meetings. However, all committees meetings in Kacerere GFS were irregular
and ad hoc. The focus group discussions indicated that most committees meet at least once
every quarter to address O&M issues.
Table 4
Tapstand committee
meetings
14
©
Gravity flow
scheme
Sampled tapstands – regular meetings
Number out of 5 (and percentage)
Sampled tapstands – ad hoc meetings
Number out of 5 (and percentage)
Kibuga
3 (60%)
2 (40%)
Nyaruhanga
4 (80%)
1 (20%)
Kacerere
0 (0%)
5 (100%)
Kaharo
5 (100%)
0 (0%)
Muyebe
4 (80%)
1 (20%)
Nyakagyera
4 (80%)
1 (20%)
Kamuronko
4 (80%)
1 (20%)
Kigata
5 (100%)
0 (0%)
Totals (n=40)
29 (73%)
11 (27%)
TEARFUND
2006
A
CASE
STUDY
FROM
SOUTH-WEST
UGANDA
The study sought to further establish when the tapstand committees had held their last
meeting. Results are indicated in Figure 1. Ninety percent of the tapstand committees
had held their meetings within the last three months, 3% within the last six months and
8% within the last twelve months. The study further sought to establish whether tapstand
committees kept records of their meeting. The results are shown in Figure 2. Records for
tapstand committee meetings were available for 77.5% of tapstand committees visited.
Fewer than one quarter (22.5%) were not able to produce the records on request though
they indicated that records of meetings were being kept.
12 months
7.5%
6 months
2.5%
3 months
90%
Figure 1 Period when last meeting was held
Not available
22.5%
Available
77.5%
Figure 2 Availability of tapstand committee
meeting records
Condition of the tapstands
The study investigated the conditions of the tap, apron, fence, and the general tap
environment. Findings are indicated in Figures 3–6 respectively.
Leakage
22.5%
Figure 3 Condition of GFS taps
©
TEARFUND
2006
Good condition
77.5%
Pitted / broken
15%
Well maintained
85%
Figure 4 Condition of the apron
15
FUNCTIONAL
S U S TA I N A B I L I T Y
IN
Poorly maintained
7.5%
Well maintained
92.5%
Figure 5 Condition of fence around GFS
tapstands
COMMUNITY
WAT E R
AND
Dirty
5%
S A N I TAT I O N
Clean
95%
Figure 6 Condition of the environment around
GFS tapstands
At the tapstands, 77.5% had taps in good working condition, 85% had well maintained
aprons, 92.5% had fences which were well maintained and 95% had clean surroundings.
Revenue collection and management
GFS tapstand committees were asked to indicate the method used for raising cash for
operation maintenance. Figures 7 and 8 show respectively how funds are raised and which
tapstand committees have bank accounts. The majority (57.5%) of tapstand committees
collect monthly or annual contributions to meet O&M needs. However, 42.5% indicated
they mobilise resources following a breakdown. Only 37.5% of tapstand committees
operate a bank account.
Payment of cash
57.5%
Communal labour
42.5%
Figure 7 GFS tapstand committee fundraising
16
©
TEARFUND
2006
No bank account
62.5%
With bank account
37.5%
Figure 8 GFS tapstand committees holding bank
accounts
A
4.2
CASE
STUDY
FROM
SOUTH-WEST
UGANDA
Fieldwork results – protected springs (sample size: 50 sources)
Age of the springs in the sample
New water sources are often better maintained and cared for than old ones as a result
of recent mobilisation activities and the training of management committee and user
communities. On the other hand a well maintained ‘old’ water source is indicative of
continued care for the water source. The study sought to establish the age of the springs in
the sample with findings as shown in Figure 9.
4–6 years
6%
1–3 years
14%
Over 15 years
4%
10–12 years
20%
7–9 years
56%
Figure 9 Age of the springs
Most springs (80%) in the sample were over 7 years, with the majority (56%) being within
the age bracket of 7–9 years.
Management structures for protected springs
Every spring had a committee and a caretaker. Fifty percent of the committees had regular
meetings, 84% had met within the last three months and 56% had records of meetings
available.
There was a link between regularity of meetings and availability of records as indicated in
Table 5.
Table 5
Spring committees:
availability of records
and regularity of
meetings
Committee meetings (n=50)
Records available (n=28)
Number (and percentage)
Records not available (n=22)
Number (and percentage)
Regular, scheduled (n=25)
19 (76%)
6 (24%)
Irregular, ad hoc (n=25)
9 (36%)
16 (64%)
If meetings were regular and scheduled, it was more than three times as likely (76%
compared to 24%) that meeting records would be readily available. In other words,
regularity of meetings is highly correlated with the availability of records, both indicating a
strong commitment to maintenance and care of the water source.
©
TEARFUND
2006
17
FUNCTIONAL
S U S TA I N A B I L I T Y
IN
COMMUNITY
WAT E R
AND
S A N I TAT I O N
Condition of the springs
The study investigated the condition of the fences, spring floors, retaining walls, drains and
the environment around the springs. Findings are shown in Figures 10–15.
Poorly maintained
22%
Well maintained
78%
30%
Figure 10 Condition of fences around protected
springs
Needs minor repair
44%
Figure 12 Condition of protected spring retaining
walls
Poorly maintained
26%
Well maintained
74%
Figure 14 Condition of protected spring main drains
18
©
TEARFUND
2006
Pitted / broken
18%
Figure 11 Condition of spring floors
Poorly maintained
24%
Well maintained
Well maintained
42%
Needs major repair
14%
Well maintained
52%
Dirty
76%
Figure 13 Condition of protected spring storm
drains
Poorly maintained
22%
Well maintained
78%
Figure 15 Condition of protected spring surroundings
A
CASE
STUDY
FROM
SOUTH-WEST
UGANDA
Further analysis indicates that the condition of the springs at the time of the visit had a link
with the regularity of committee meetings. Table 6 shows the condition of the fence and
main drain as it relates to the regularity of committee meetings.
Table 6
Protected springs:
conditions of fence
and main drain
related to regularity
of meetings
Fence condition (n=50)
Drain condition (n=50)
Committee meetings
Maintained
well (n=39)
Maintained
poorly (n=11)
Maintained
well (n=37)
Maintained
poorly (n=13)
Regular, scheduled
23
2
23
2
Irregular, ad hoc
16
9
14
11
Where the meetings were regular and scheduled, 92% (23 out of 25) of the spring fences
were well maintained compared to 64% (16 out of 25) where meetings were irregular and
ad hoc. Likewise, 92% of the springs with regular committee meetings had the main drains
well maintained, compared to 56% where committee meetings were irregular and ad hoc.
This underscores the need to encourage regular and scheduled meetings for the committees.
Out of the 50 protected springs visited, 20% of the user groups pay monthly contributions
to generate maintenance funds.
4.3
Fieldwork results – rainwater harvesting
(sample size: 12 households – 6 jars, 6 tanks)
Twelve rainwater-harvesting facilities were visited. Of these, six were water jars and six
were water tanks. All the rain water supply facilities were at household level. The condition
of the jars and water tanks, the taps to the tanks, the waste water drains, the soakaway
pits and the general environment were found in good state of maintenance. All households
with the water jars and tanks had been visited by the programme monitor within the last
three months.
4.4
Key stakeholder interview findings
The findings of the interviews with key stakeholders are summarised in the following sections.
4.4.1
On the concept
and meaning of
sustainability
Water sector and development professionals
Sustainability is a dynamic concept. Technologies or ways of doing things change, but the
service remains in place. Sustainability adds the time dimension to ‘success’ or effectiveness.
Sustainable interventions ‘stand the test of time’. Sustainable services function continuously.
One respondent expressed the view that sustainable activities are those which continue to
function over time without external support. He agreed that some types of intervention
will never be sustainable in this sense. Sustainability is about the continued enjoyment of
(health and livelihood) benefits – permanently.
©
TEARFUND
2006
19
FUNCTIONAL
On the factors
necessary to achieve
sustainability
S U S TA I N A B I L I T Y
IN
COMMUNITY
WAT E R
AND
S A N I TAT I O N
Factors which respondents thought were important included:
●
meeting a real need
●
ensuring that the community is fully involved in decision-making
●
building on what people already know and do
●
selecting appropriate (manageable) technology
●
good quality construction
●
reliable support from private sector in terms of, for example, spare parts supply
●
the ‘fit’ of the scheme to policy and politics
●
strong community organisations, strengthened by appropriate capacity building
●
ongoing support by an agency external to the community.
For one respondent, the single most important priority is community empowerment.
For another the single most important factor is leadership: able, energetic, skillful,
knowledgable, committed leadership, with integrity and openness.
On behaviours
to avoid
Behaviours that respondents thought should be avoided included:
●
sitting in offices ‘designing things’ for people
●
creating new community structures when they already exist
●
thinking about what is good for communities – rather than finding out from them
●
giving money to people to attend meetings
●
creating dependency
●
focusing only on delivering outputs, especially physical hardware
●
failure to take the time to really understand the community and its culture
●
development as a gift – communities must play their part
●
paying lip-service to demand-responsive approaches
●
‘one size fits all’ solutions.
For one respondent, probably the single most damaging aspect of many programmes,
which undermines sustainability, is poor financial management.
Concerning ongoing
support
Ongoing support is crucial. Nothing lasts without follow-up support, ‘keeping the fire
burning’. Backup is needed to assist in the solution of technical problems, and to support
committees when they run into difficulties. For how long? Indefinitely – there is no time
limit. But the exact type and amount depends on the technology and the community.
How much and what type of contact should the implementing agencies (IAs) have with
the community? Enough, but not too much, and of the right type. A lot at the beginning,
significant support later on, and continuing but reducing over the long term.
On intangible
qualities of IAs and
communities
Commitment, drive, initiative, ethos, underlying values, transparency, honesty,
accountability, leadership by example, respect, political wisdom, a learning mentality. Can
these intangibles be created or encouraged? Yes, by demonstration and leadership, but
there are limits to what can be achieved.
20
©
TEARFUND
2006
A
On partnerships
between donors
and IAs
CASE
STUDY
FROM
SOUTH-WEST
UGANDA
Donors are often far-removed from the realities; in some cases this also applies to IAs.
Donors do not always listen, and they can be very negative. It is important to establish good
working relations early on, then later problems can be dealt with. Donors should realise
they ‘don’t know it all’. Sometimes they offer assistance which is unrelated to real needs.
Donor and IA must each see themselves as equal partners. Person-to-person relationships are
fundamental, with good transparent reporting and communication. The two are equal but
not identical. Donors must be flexible and they must understand realities on the ground.
On the achievement
of sustainability
4.4.2
On programme
success
‘If we only did sustainable things, we wouldn’t do much.’ ‘It doesn’t always work.’
‘It isn’t in the corporate culture [of some IAs and donors].’
Local government and other public sector representatives
The programme projects are demand driven, as opposed to government projects that are
often politically driven.
The programme has exhibited a high level of transparency. What is designed for the project
goes on the project. There are clear rules for how the programme operates: every GFS, for
example, has its bye-laws that local councils enforce. So there is a very good relationship
between the programme and the local councils. For example, you cannot make any
connections on the GFS unless you have been authorised. It does not matter who you are.
The programme does not discriminate. People who never used to meet are now able to
meet and jointly address their problems. (Historically the people of Kabale are divided along
religious lines.)
The programme approach involves communities in the identification of problems and
working with them to find solutions right from the start of a project. The diocese values
the pre-construction process. There is analysis of problems, and mobilisation that creates
demand, addressing both water and sanitation. The mobilisation process involves discussing
terms with communities – who is responsible for what – leading to a signing of an
agreement of co-operation between the two parties. The community spirit of ownership is
developed at the initial stages.
There is a close working relationship between the programme and the local authorities,
specifically local councils (LCs) 1, 2 and 3. The sub-county contributed USh1.5 million
for the extension of Nagyera GFS. Most sub-counties have a budget for supporting the
programme work.
There is a strong follow-up component of the programme coupled with exchange visits.
The programme has exhibited a quick response to problems when called upon to assist
communities. The follow-up process is not a one-time event but a continuous activity.
‘At district and national level, we all seem to know what to do but we don’t reach those levels
of what needs to be done. The diocese … knows what to do and goes ahead and does it.’
For example, the district has the equipment and know-how but doesn’t conduct water
tests. The diocese on the other hand uses the district staff to test water under the diocese
programme.
©
TEARFUND
2006
21
FUNCTIONAL
S U S TA I N A B I L I T Y
IN
COMMUNITY
WAT E R
AND
S A N I TAT I O N
In government programmes, extension staff have taken a low profile, yet they are key to
both implementation and operation and maintenance (O&M) of the facilities developed.
The resources for mobilisation activities are left at the centre and often do not reach the
extension staff.
On continued
assistance
‘If the programme closed, the projects would collapse. The programme office is seen as a
point of reference. The programme is open and not corruptible.’
‘It’s true the committees know what to do but you see, the environment keeps changing.
Tomorrow we may have a new sub-county leader who may just order extensions. Without a
head office to say yes or no, a lot of things can go wrong.’
On improvements
to be made
There is a need for a contact person at programme level – a person to contact on any
issues arising from the sub-county. Consider establishing a commercial shop for obtaining
spares. There may be spares at the programme office but at times there are no staff available.
To avoid possible future problems, there is a need to survey the water sources and obtain
land titles where appropriate.
On financing of O&M
There is a clear government structure and support for construction but not so for O&M.
‘We [government] don’t seem to have an idea on the cost of follow-up and for O&M.
These costs could be incorporated in the initial project costing. The [South-West Towns]
umbrella organisation is providing technical backup for the maintenance of GFS. Earlier
problems within committees have been largely mismanagement of funds. The umbrella
organisation may, after some time, give us the cost for O&M of a GFS.’
In generating O&M funds, payment of flat rates by beneficiaries is not good. Some have
used water from GFS for irrigation and other farming activities including watering cows. If
it were possible, all private connections should be metered.
On O&M-related
problems
The major problem for [government] GFS is uncoordinated connections. Thus you have
pipes but no water in the pipes. This is one problem that the diocese has addressed in its
programme.
The diocese has been strong on O&M partly because it is independent from political
pressures.
On the district
– programme
co-ordination and
district support
Some level of co-ordination between the programme and the district water office is needed.
There is more co-ordination at planning stages and less during implementation. This,
however, needs to be improved.
The district demands facilitation (sitting allowances and other expenses) whenever invited
to be involved in programme activities. The programme has tended to use government
workers as individuals while on programme activities (as in water testing). Such work on an
‘individual’ basis is often not reported to the district office.
There is no good forum for sharing information in the district. The various NGOs in the
district operate independently and individually. The challenge is to develop a district-based
NGO network. Currently there is limited confidence in the district to involve NGOs given
the variance in the level of success in projects under district vis-à-vis projects under NGOs.
22
©
TEARFUND
2006
A
4.4.3
CASE
STUDY
FROM
SOUTH-WEST
UGANDA
Gravity flow scheme water and sanitation committee members
KDWSP GFS are constructed in response to demand, and they therefore address real
need: at Kabanyonyi, there were outbreaks of dysentery due to contaminated water. Two of
the villages suffered dry season water shortages. In Katuna Upper, communities collected
water from a swamp. There were sporadic outbreaks of malaria and dysentery. The same
community noticed that a neighbouring community with a GFS had fewer cases of waterrelated disease. In Rwancerere, there were water shortages. Households had to travel long
distances (over 3km) for contaminated water, which led to disease. In Nyamabaare, water
was distant.
At all GFS, community cash contributions are required, and these are placed in a bank
account as an initial O&M fund. The method of raising this cash varies. In some schemes
the households contribute directly. In others the sub-county pays.
GFS management committees have a good (generally about 50:50) gender balance, and they
work effectively, making decisions, linking with the LCs and participating in competitions.
Maintenance is the immediate responsibility of scheme caretakers, who answer to the GFS
committee. Major repairs and supply of specialist spares are supported by the diocese.
Routine spares purchase and repairs are carried out without reference to the diocese.
Financing of O&M is from annual household contributions and fines (for absence from
meetings, for grazing animals near tapstands). All but one (Katuna Upper) of the schemes
visited have bank accounts, many with substantial balances. At Katuna Upper there was
no bank account or O&M fund, and no household fees were being raised. However, the
community members would make ad hoc contributions in case of breakdown.
Committees and the diocese work closely with local government (LCs 1–3), especially
with respect to mobilising communities and enforcing bye-laws. In some cases sub-county
health assistants are involved in sanitation promotion, and LC executives sometimes involve
representation from GFS committees.
Ongoing support to GFS comes mainly from the diocese. Local councils do not contribute
to the financing of O&M. None of the GFS visited had received any support from the
district.
4.4.4
Reasons offered for
the success of the
programme
KDWSP programme staff
●
Christian values and keeping to the rules and values of the church.
●
Good programme leadership, transparency in programme activities and actions.
Bishops’ statements like ‘Why don’t you be like people in the water programme?’ that
reflect transparency.
●
Free interaction among staff, respect for all involved irrespective of position in the
organisation.
●
Programme bi-weekly meetings and reviews.
●
Calling a spade a spade. Self-criticism and sharing among staff.
●
Personal touch, interest and support by the bishop.
©
TEARFUND
2006
23
FUNCTIONAL
Concerning ongoing
support
On working with the
district/subcounties
On recommendations
for improvements
24
S U S TA I N A B I L I T Y
IN
COMMUNITY
WAT E R
AND
S A N I TAT I O N
●
There are plans and resources to execute those plans. All staff are adequately facilitated
to perform their tasks/duties.
●
The programme is demand responsive. Community makes contributions.
●
Emphasis on gender. 50% women representation on committees.
●
The mobilisation approach where the programme personnel lives in the community
with the community.
●
The official handing over of programmes and the basic tools for O&M (GFS).
The programme gives follow-up support to commissioned projects. This includes:
●
Refresher training to communities, committees and caretakers.
●
Establishment of community monitoring teams.
●
Conducting annual competitions among GFS and giving prizes as incentives.
●
Facilitating study tours and exchange visits.
●
Refresher training of CBOs involved in building water tanks/jars.
●
Formation of demonstration villages as learning grounds.
●
Support visits by the programme staff.
●
Response to community requests to make repairs.
The programme has the moral support of the district. The lower level authorities have
played a key role in mobilisation activities and enforce rules and bye-laws developed by
committees. However political leaders often want to use the programme for political gains.
LCs 1–3 are kept active monitoring the projects and enforcing bye-laws. In areas where LCs
are supportive there are higher standards of O&M than where LCs are less supportive. The
support of the LCs is more crucial during the ongoing support than during construction.
Working closely with LCs creates an enabling environment for the programme to operate
and avoid saboteurs. The non-segregated approach reinforces the good working relationship
with LCs. The initial good relationship built with LCs 1–3 is instrumental for the success
of the ongoing support.
●
The programme needs to document its experiences. The information is available but
needs to be organised and documented for future reference and for others to learn about
the programme.
●
Maintain end-of-year self-appraisal to identify what was good for the programme and
areas that need improvement. How can the programme perform better?
●
Maintain motivation of staff through the annual outing with spouses.
©
TEARFUND
2006
A
CASE
STUDY
FROM
SOUTH-WEST
UGANDA
5 Synthesis
Over its 20 years of operation in Kabale District/Kigezi Diocese, KDWSP has demonstrated
that it is possible to deliver sustainable water and sanitation services to, and with, communities and households. Systems which were constructed up to 16 years ago have been examined
in this study, and found to be still performing well, both technically and institutionally. This
is in stark contrast to some other programmes in the district, in which two-year-old systems
are in serious trouble.
The delivery of sustainable water supply services is about moving people from independence
or near-total self-reliance on distant, unprotected, unreliable, contaminated water sources
to a state of inter-dependence, in which they have an improved service but need to
interact with an external support structure provided by diocese, local government, private
sector, CBOs and NGOs, or some combination of all these. This point is crucial. Water
and sanitation interventions need to avoid two potential pitfalls. The first is the myth that
technology can be transferred and community institutions set up, and the community can
then be left to manage on its own with no further external support. This is the myth of
perpetual motion – wind up the clock and it runs for ever. All systems run down in the
absence of continuing inputs of time, energy, money and support. The second trap is that
of creating excessive dependence of the community on the implementing agency. If, for
example, communities can only access post-implementation support from the single agency
which implemented the programme in the first place, and for some reason that agency fails
to provide support, then the community is no better off than if it is left to fend for itself.
Somehow it is necessary for implementing agencies to boost the self-reliance and capacity of
community institutions, while at the same time establishing or ensuring that a robust and
diverse set of support structures exists for the community to access.
This research has made clear that three broad sets of factors are needed for success and
sustainability in rural water and sanitation programmes. In brief, these can be summed
up as:
●
doing the right things
●
doing things right
●
doing things for the right reasons.
With all these in place, the achievement of sustainability is possible. Weaknesses in any one
(or more) threatens to undermine success and sustainability.
Doing the right things
By this, we mean that the many lessons that have been learned in the sector over the last
few decades need to be put into practice. This is a matter of not simply paying lip-service,
but taking very seriously each of the aspects which are known to be important. Table 1
lists many of these ‘building blocks’ – full community participation; attention to gender;
working closely with other players in local government and NGOs; strong attention to
construction quality; being explicit about the need for ongoing support; energetically
promoting hygiene and sanitation; building the capacity and self-esteem of communities;
planning strategically for optimum cost-effectiveness.
©
TEARFUND
2006
25
FUNCTIONAL
S U S TA I N A B I L I T Y
IN
COMMUNITY
WAT E R
AND
S A N I TAT I O N
Doing things right
Stacking the right building blocks together is not enough though. Doing things right means
attention to process as well as activity. It is a question of how things are done, not just what
is done. The way staff are treated within the programme (with respect and compassion,
giving them a voice regardless of job function or seniority, and with openness) and the way
communities and public authorities are treated by the programme (also with respect, a spirit
of partnership, and a willingness to learn) determines the effectiveness of the implementing
agency both as an entity and in its dealings with the communities where it works.
The quality of leadership, and the qualities of the implementing agency, with particular
emphasis on transparency and willingness to learn, fundamentally affect its effectiveness.
Doing things for the right reasons
There is a deeper level within the process of doing development, and this relates to the
motivation, values and ethos of the implementing agency. If ‘doing development’ is simply
a job, a means of paying the bills, then it is unlikely that the process factors touched on
under ‘doing things right’ will remain in place for long. The work is then reduced to a
matter of stacking the building blocks with no particular commitment to the process or the
outcome. If on the other hand there is a strong passion for the work, driven by compassion
for the marginalised, driven by humanitarian or religious motives, or motivated by strong
instincts for social justice and equity, then the rest can follow.
Justin Mog (2004) in his paper ‘Struggling with Sustainability’ emphasises the importance of
six ‘process-oriented criteria’ for evaluating sustainability: (1) the character of participation;
(2) the success and nature of institution- and capacity building efforts; (3) diversity, multiplicity and adaptability of ideas promoted by the programme; (4) accounting for heterogeneity,
diversity and dynamism; (5) understanding and use of local knowledge, skills, initiative and
constraints; and (6) recognising the influence of external conditions, markets and policies.
Many of these fit closely with the attributes of KDWSP, as developed over nearly 20 years.
Challenges
None of the preceding discussion is to suggest that sustainability is easy to achieve.
In KDWSP three particular challenges to sustainability are appearing:
26
●
Because some of the physical structures implemented by the diocese are now reaching
the end of their design life, it is not surprising that some cracks are beginning to show.
So far, repair and minor replacement has been appropriate, but in future more serious
physical rehabilitation or replacement will be needed.
●
KDWSP’s approach has applied in practice the well-established principles of
full community participation, including insistence on cash contributions for
implementation, and full community responsibility for maintenance costs. Although
in the past this has concurred with government policy, three recent changes or trends
threaten this approach. The first is the fact that in practice many implementing
agencies (including government) do not insist on cash contributions; second, the move
©
TEARFUND
2006
A
CASE
STUDY
FROM
SOUTH-WEST
UGANDA
to districts contracting out to the private sector has largely undermined community
participation in government programmes; and third, the tendency for local and national
politicians to ‘buy’ votes by telling communities that it is unnecessary to pay for the
services that those same politicians dishonestly claim responsibility for.
●
The continuation of KDWSP’s work depends largely on external finance. This is
getting no easier to obtain, despite the increased emphasis on the African water sector
internationally. It is ironic that one of the most successful programmes in Uganda is
only able to operate at about 50% of its budgeted level, due to difficulties of accessing
international funds.
Opportunities
There are changes taking place however which present opportunities for KDWSP and
other implementing agencies, if they are able to adapt their ways of working appropriately.
Two factors in particular stand out, and both relate to the situation of the poor and the
relatively wealthy in rural Uganda.
The first factor is the strong awareness on the part of a large proportion of the rural
population of their limited cash incomes, and the correspondingly high motivation to tackle
this need. Given viable opportunities, including training, credit and start-up support, there
is considerable potential to stimulate the small business sector, part of which could focus
on water sector activities such as construction of rainwater jars and tanks, guttering, latrine
slabs and hand-washing facilities. KDWSP has already demonstrated on a limited scale that
such an approach can work. Scaling it up much more widely would not only extend access
to safe water and sanitation but also help to ensure the sustainability of such services.
The second and related factor is provided by the increasing divide between the relatively
wealthy and the poor. From a social perspective this has many negative implications, but
from an economic viewpoint it provides opportunities both locally and nationally. In short,
the relatively wealthy represent the market for the goods and services produced and supplied
by the poor. The development of small businesses run by those who are now relatively poor
gives the opportunity to redistribute some of the wealth which is increasingly evident both
in local communities and in the capital.
Figure 16 is an attempt to summarise the preconditions for sustainability, as evidenced by
KDWSP. Full account needs to be taken of at least three interlinked aspects. Underpinning
the entire endeavour is the ethos – the values, attitudes, integrity and degree of commitment
– of the individuals and organisations involved (‘doing things for the right reasons’).
When combined with a sound understanding of international, national, community and
institutional contexts, a sound ethos can lead to a set of processes which are conducive
to the achievement of sustainable beneficial impacts: truly participative and empowering,
mutually respectful, culturally sensitive and taking sufficient time (‘doing things right’).
Processes alone are not enough though, and they need to be combined with skills and
expertise in technical, social and institutional aspects, financial resources, sound management
and access to information and networks, to build the right set of intervention activities
(‘doing the right things’). When all these ingredients come together in a vision shared by
donor, implementing agency and communities, then a lasting impact can be achieved.
©
TEARFUND
2006
27
FUNCTIONAL
Figure 16
A framework for
understanding
sustainability of
water and sanitation
interventions
S U S TA I N A B I L I T Y
IN
COMMUNITY
WAT E R
AND
S A N I TAT I O N
A FAVOURABLE ETHOS
Personal qualitites and corporate culture of donors, implementing agencies and communities
• VALUES – wishing to reduce suffering and poverty, to empower, to raise dignity
• ATTITUDES – respect for all stakeholders, respect for women, initiative
• COMMITMENT – a willingness to go the second mile
• INTEGRITY – honesty, trustworthiness and transparency
• LEADERSHIP – ability, energy, interpersonal skills, respect for others
PLUS
Understanding of
international issues:
Understanding at
national level:
Understanding at
agency level
Understanding at
community level:
• development trends
• national policies and
strategies
• how organisations
work
• social and cultural
issues
• institutions
• importance of
sound financial
management
• community
institutions
• drivers of
development
• sources of funding,
knowledge and
assistance
• sources of funding
• politics and history
• natural environment
• need for good time
management
• capacity and
vulnerability
MAY LEAD TO
CONDUCIVE PROCESS
How things are done – the approaches of donors, implementing agencies and communities
• FOCUS – on need
• PEOPLE-CENTRED APPROACH – listening and understanding, participative, empowering,
building on existing culture and capacity, recognising importance of gender
• ATTENTION TO QUALITY
• A PROBLEM-SOLVING APPROACH – characterised by experimentation, learning and
reflection
• WILLINGNESS TO LEARN – recognising and responding to heterogeneity
• TAKING TIME
• INTEGRATION – recognising the interrelated nature of community needs and problems
PLUS
Sound social and institutional skills
Sound technical expertise in
sectors relevant to community needs
Adequate time
Financial and human resources
and good leadership
Good organisational management
(including financial and human
resource management)
Access to information and
networks
MAY LEAD TO
HIGH QUALITY INTEGRATED ACTIVITIES
RESULTING IN
SUSTAINABLE IMPACT
28
©
TEARFUND
2006
A
CASE
STUDY
FROM
SOUTH-WEST
UGANDA
6 Implications
KDWSP works in one district of Uganda, with a range of technologies specifically suited
to the hilly, well-watered natural environment and to the densely populated but dispersed
nature of its communities. The programme is situated within a diocese of the Church of
Uganda, a position which confers on it certain advantages and opportunities – such as being
able to use its network of local church pastors and its international links to other churches
abroad. It has also been able to access international funding from a wide range of secular
and Christian donors.
The final question therefore in this work, is to what extent, and in what ways can the
findings of the work be relevant to other organisations working in different contexts, in
Uganda or beyond her borders?
6.1
For faith-based organisations
Many other churches and faith-based organisations share the underlying ethos of KDWSP,
and the priority areas for their learning are most likely to lie in the aspects of process (‘doing
things right’) and activities (‘doing the right things’) described earlier. It is always invidious
to generalise, but one common area of weakness within faith-based organisations, as well
as non-specialist NGOs, is in their professional and technical understanding of the sectorspecific issues. This is understandable in organisations whose focus is on spiritual matters
or on welfare-motivated relief. KDWSP’s experience is being documented now, and many
of the guidance documents which will soon be available through the programme will be of
inestimable benefit to others, with appropriate local adaptation.
Some observe that not enough faith-based organisations or NGOs take the trouble to build
strong links to local government. They generally prefer to operate independently, and their
respect for government is often reduced because of limited understanding of the constraints
faced by government. This attitude should be resisted strongly. The greater the mutual
respect and understanding between the different sector players, the greater the likelihood of
making a significant and lasting impact together.
6.2
For NGOs
The main difference between secular NGOs and faith-based organisations lies in the
different motivations for the organisations and individuals involved. While faith-based
organisations explicitly espouse certain religious values and goals, secular NGOs express
their aims in humanitarian terms, without direct reference to God. Nevertheless the ethos of
such organisations is largely driven by that of the individuals who work for them, and
whether they have religious convictions or not, their motivation for social justice can be very
high. If it is not, then the foundations are likely to be weak.
Some NGOs have specialist expertise in water and sanitation, while others do not. The
danger of limited access to such specialist expertise is that generalists are put in charge of
matters for which they lack the necessary expertise. Even if water and sanitation specialists
are not employed full-time, it is essential that generalist NGOs have access to reliable and
©
TEARFUND
2006
29
FUNCTIONAL
S U S TA I N A B I L I T Y
IN
COMMUNITY
WAT E R
AND
S A N I TAT I O N
professional specialist technical advice. Ethos and process are not enough, without the right
activities (‘doing the right things’). Again, it is also important that secular NGOs also build
strong links with local and national governments where appropriate.
6.3
For government
Governments operate under many more constraints than faith-based organisations or
NGOs. They are subject to many more bureaucratic procedures, and processes of decision
making and policy formulation take a long time, for good reasons. Government staff,
especially at lower levels, are often paid very poorly, and their individual operating
environment is challenging in the extreme. Staff turnover in local government is high, so
institutional memory is short. Corruption is frequently endemic, and even if an individual
wants to confront it, such resistance is almost impossible to carry through. Nevertheless,
central government has the mandate to set policy and provide strategic guidance to districts;
and local government has the responsibility of delivering public services though contracting
out to the private sector. There may be many weaknesses in the ways governments work,
but there are encouraging trends too, and a strong public sector is essential in any
partnership between government, donors, NGOs, the private sector and communities.
Finally it must not be forgotten that most of the funding (the 2005 Sector Performance
Report implies around four-fifths) for Uganda’s water and sanitation sector is channelled
through government.
So what lessons can central and local government learn from the experiences of KDWSP?
Faith-based organisations and NGOs tend to be strong on motivation and social processes,
but some observe that they can be weaker on technical specialism. On the other hand,
governments may be highly competent when it comes to the technical aspects of the sector,
but the underlying ethos and values, internal and outward-facing processes and operational
constraints can weaken their impact significantly. The key question is the extent to which
characteristics of transparent, accountable and inspiring leadership and management can
be nurtured in an operating environment which is inherently so challenging. There is little
doubt, though, that this is where government efforts to improve effectiveness and enhance
sustainability should focus attention. Sound governance, high quality management and full
transparency and accountability are needed, but these are only possible with determined
leadership and the shared commitment of all.
6.4
For international donors
The main implications for donors are based on comments made by sector professionals
who urge:
30
●
a greater in-depth understanding of the realities – social, economic, institutional and
political – which implementing agencies face in their work
●
long-term partnerships with implementing agencies based on equality of status – if not
of function – and based on person-to-person relationships
©
TEARFUND
2006
A
CASE
STUDY
FROM
SOUTH-WEST
UGANDA
●
flexibility to respond to changing circumstances in the operating environment or in the
circumstances of the implementing agency.
Given that the majority of international aid to the sector is channelled via the government
in the case of Uganda, it is important that donors help government programmes to operate
in a sustainable way. They need to recognise that it is important for the state to invest
in its staff and to assist the government to make progress in the areas of transparency,
accountability, leadership and management. They also need to acknowledge that best
practice may also exist outside of government programmes and help governments to learn
from and replicate good work carried out by NGOs as well as the private sector. This is vital
if services are to be scaled-up quickly. It is also important that some money continues to be
channelled via non-state players if this cross-fertilisation is to flourish.
©
TEARFUND
2006
31
FUNCTIONAL
S U S TA I N A B I L I T Y
IN
WAT E R
AND
S A N I TAT I O N
PROGRAMMES
References
32
●
Abrams LJ (1998) Understanding Sustainability of Local Water Services Internet address
http://wn.apc.org/afwater/Sustainability.htm, 1998
●
Carter RC, Mehari M, Demessie D, Byomugabi S, Akandwanirira D, Byamugisha J,
Webster J, Bagamuhunda G, and Bekunda K (1997) Kigezi Diocese Water Department:
External Evaluation, December 1997 Kigezi Diocese, PO Box 3, Kabale, Uganda
●
Danert K, Katuramu GW, Carter RC, Bagamuhunda G, Bekunda K, Byomuhangi R,
Twinomuhwezi G, Asiimwe J, Kiconco G, Tibenderana D, Tutoreinwe P, Tibenderana P,
and Byomugabi S (2004) Final Report of the 2004 Evaluation of the Kigezi Diocese Water
and Sanitation Programme Kigezi Diocese Water and Sanitation Programme, PO Box 3,
Kabale, Uganda
●
Mog J (2004) ‘Struggling with Sustainability – a comparative framework for evaluation
sustainable development programs’ World Development 32 (12) 2004, pages 2139–2160
●
Morgan J, Kunihira M, Carter RC, Bagamuhunda G, Bekunda K, Abakundaine M,
Tibenderana D, Asiimwe J, Kiconco G, and Rwabyoma P (2001) ‘This Is What We
Had Always Wanted’: the report of the 2001 evaluation of the Kigezi Diocese Water and
Sanitation Programme Kigezi Diocese, PO Box 3, Kabale, Uganda
©
TEARFUND
2006
Functional sustainability in water and sanitation
A case study from South-West Uganda
Authors: Professor Richard Carter and Ronnie Rwamwanja
Front cover photo: Richard Hanson / Tearfund
Back cover photo: Professor Richard Carter / Cranfield
Tearfund contact: Laura Webster
Senior Policy Officer, Water and Sanitation
pptadmin@tearfund.org
Cranfield contact: Professor Richard Carter
r.c.carter@cranfield.ac.uk
Diocese of Kigezi contact: Rev. George Bagamuhunda
Director of the Kigezi Diocese Water and Sanitation Programme
kdwd@infocom.co.ug
© Tearfund 2006
DIOCESE OF KIGEZI
CHURCH OF UGANDA